5.  The applicant was born in 1969.
6.  At 7.18 a.m. on 9 June 2006 the State police in Rīga received a telephone call from R.H. who reported that two men had broken into his apartment in Rīga and attacked him with an axe. The alleged victim had escaped but his girlfriend, O.A., was still in the apartment and was allegedly under threat. According to reports drawn up by police officers K.H. and V.O. on the same date, four police officers (V.O., D.V., M.S., J.S.) from the “Alfa” special operations unit (Speciālo uzdevumu vienība “Alfa”) and two police officers (K.H. and I.G.) from the Rīga Main police station (First Division), went immediately to the address given. Next to the building they met R.H., who was bleeding. He guided the police officers to the apartment, where they saw a naked woman and two men. One of the men (the applicant) attempted to escape, so the police had to use a special combat technique to put him on the ground. The applicant did not calm down and was therefore handcuffed. Both men, as well as the alleged victims, R.H. and O.A., were taken to the Rīga Main police station (First Division). The applicant was searched and the police officers found narcotic substances on him.
7.  According to the applicant, on 9 June 2006 he was in an apartment in Rīga visiting acquaintances and consuming alcohol, when suddenly five or six police officers arrived. They handcuffed and searched the applicant, and punched him a number of times in the head and body. The applicant was then dragged to a police car and taken to a police station. After an altercation with the police officers, the applicant was wrestled to the ground. The police officers kicked him; one of them jumped on him while he was on the ground, and another pulled open the applicant’s eye and hit him in the eyeball. The ill-treatment lasted for about half an hour, during which the applicant lost consciousness several times. Afterwards he was put in a pre‑trial detention cell where he asked for medical assistance. Only after repeated requests was he admitted to hospital.
8.  The record of the applicant’s arrest under article 46 of the Administrative Offences Code, drawn up at 8 a.m. on 9 June 2006 by police officer O.K., stated that the applicant had bruises on his arms and wounds to the left eyebrow and right cheek. It noted that during the search of the applicant the police had seized, among other things, a firearm-like object and a plastic bag containing a transparent substance. According to the report, the applicant was released at 4.30 p.m. on the same day and subsequently arrested under section 264 of the Law of Criminal Procedure. The arrest report indicated that the applicant had had a swollen eye and had been under the influence of drugs.
9.  According to medical records, at around 1 p.m. on 9 June 2006 the applicant was examined at the State Drug and Alcohol Abuse Agency where it was confirmed that there were traces of narcotic substances in his body. At about 10 p.m. the same day the applicant was admitted to Rīga Hospital No. 1. He complained of a headache and pain in the left part of the chest. An X-ray was taken and he was diagnosed with bruising on the head and chest.
10.  On 11 June 2006 the Rīga City Latgale District Court remanded the applicant in custody.
11.  On 12 June 2006 the applicant was admitted to the Latvian Prison hospital (Latvijas Cietuma slimnīca), where the results of an X-ray examination carried out on 13 and 19 June 2006 established that he had four broken ribs.
12.  On 27 June 2006 the decision to detain the applicant was revoked and he was discharged from the hospital.
13.  On 29 June 2006 the applicant was re-arrested for alleged possession of drugs which had been discovered on him on 9 June 2006 (see paragraph 8 above) and remanded in custody. Deciding on the measure, the investigating judge relied, inter alia, on the fact that the applicant had expressed his intention to leave the country.
14.  From 29 June to 12 July 2006 the applicant was again admitted to the prison hospital where he was diagnosed with “a condition after a series of fractured ribs on the left side. Post-traumatic neuralgia”.
15.  On 27 June 2006, following a complaint submitted by the applicant on 14 June 2006 that he had been ill-treated by police officers, the State police Internal Security Office (Valsts policijas Iekšējas drošības birojs) instituted criminal proceedings in case no. 11819004606 with respect to the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant in the short-term detention unit of the Rīga Main police station (Rīgas Galvenās Policijas Pārvaldes Īslaicīgās aizturēšanas izolators).
16.  On 21 July 2006 R., the investigator of the Internal Security Office, sought medico-legal assessment and also asked the expert to ascertain whether the applicant’s injuries could have been self-inflicted.
17.  On 28 July 2006 the first medico-legal assessment was carried out on the basis of the available medical data. Additional information was requested from the health-care institutions and a radiologist in relation to the applicant’s chest injury. On 12 October 2006 the radiologist concluded that the applicant had four fractured ribs on the upper left side under the arm. The fractures were considered to be “fresh”, possibly sustained on 9 June 2006. On 16 October 2006 the medico-legal expert concluded that the fractured ribs constituted a medium-to-severe bodily injury causing long‑term health problems of more than twenty-one days, whereas the other bruising constituted light injuries causing short-term health problems of no more than six days. The conclusion stated that the applicant himself could have inflicted the bruising to his head and the hematomas on 9 June 2006, and that they may have been caused by a blunt object. The expert noted that the applicant had not been subjected to an early medico-legal assessment and it was therefore impossible to draw conclusions concerning the exact number of traumatic impacts. Nor could the expert draw conclusions about the exact manner and time at which the fractures had been sustained because the initial X-ray examination of 9 June 2006 had not disclosed that injury (the report stated that the results of that examination had not been kept) and the information about it had appeared for the first time on 13 June 2006. The expert stated that it could not be excluded that the fracture might have been caused on 9 June 2006 because the applicant had complained of pain on the same day. Nor could it be excluded that some of the injuries could have been caused as a result of the applicant falling down against a hard, uneven surface, but it would have had to have happened more than once.
18.  From July 2006 to January 2007 nine police officers from the Rīga Main police station and the special operations unit were questioned. Police officer K.H. stated, inter alia, that when he and I.G. had arrived at the apartment, the applicant had tried to escape and had attempted to kick the police officers. Therefore he and some of his colleagues had had to put him face down on the ground and handcuff him.
19.  In relation to the applicant’s behaviour in the police station, K.H: stated:
“... After having been brought to the [premises of the Rīga Main police station], the detainees behaved aggressively ... [the applicant] tried to kick me, used abusive language about police officers and threatened to cause us problems. In view of the aggressive behaviour of [the two detainees] and the fact that during arrest they had tried to run away, in order to prevent them from absconding again ... we ordered them to lay face down on the ground. A.S. obeyed our orders but [the applicant] refused and started to swear. Therefore [I] applied physical force, forced his hands behind his back and put him face down on the ground, [and] handcuffed him again. ([Let me] clarify that at that point his handcuffs still had not been removed and I did not force his arms behind his back but took [him] by the arms). Afterwards the search [of the applicant] was carried out.”...
20.  The other two police officers (I.G. and V.O.) who had participated in the applicant’s arrest stated that the arrest had been carried out speedily. Once they had taken the applicant to the police station, their shift was over and they left without having witnessed the applicant being searched.
21.  The other police officers either could not remember the events at the police station or contended that no-one had used force against the applicant. In particular, D.J. submitted that at 8 a.m. when he took up his duties at the police station the applicant had already been handcuffed. The applicant behaved aggressively; he was swearing, alleging that he had been detained without any grounds and threatening to cause the police officers problems at work. D.J. then left; when he returned the applicant was in the detention unit and had some facial injuries. O.K. testified that at about 8 a.m. when he had arrived at the police station, the applicant had been lying face down and handcuffed on the ground. During the search the applicant was in a horizontal position on the floor and ignored orders to stand up and respond to questions. S.V., who arrived at the police station at 7.45 a.m. and together with other colleagues took over the detention procedure from the previous shift, noted that the applicant had been on the ground. During S.V.’s shift the applicant asked for medical assistance, which was provided to him. G.L., another police officer, could not remember the applicant’s behaviour but recalled that when he had arrived at the police station at 7.45 a.m., the applicant had been lying on the ground and O.K. and the witnesses had been drawing up the arrest report.
22.  J.O., one of the two civilians invited to witness the applicant’ being searched, could not precisely recollect the events and whether the applicant had behaved aggressively during the search or whether special measures had been applied, but he thought he remembered that on his arrival the applicant had already been on the floor.
23.  O.A., one of the alleged victims, testified that she had not witnessed any force being used against the applicant in the apartment. The co‑defendant, A.S., stated that when the two defendants had been taken to the police station they had been first searched and afterwards put in separate cells, so he had been unable to witness the treatment of the applicant. Nevertheless, he had heard him shouting.
24.  Meanwhile, following an order from the head of the Rīga Main police station, the human resources department (Rīgas pilsētas Galvenās policijas pārvaldes Personālsastāva inspekcijas nodaļa) carried out an internal investigation in order to verify the applicant’s allegations. In the course of the investigation K.H. denied that he had used force against the applicant either in the apartment or in the police station. Four other police officers were also questioned and they denied that physical force had been applied to the applicant. G.L. stated that he had arrived at the police station at 7.45 a.m. and had seen two men lying on the floor; he and O.K. had filed the arrest report and stated that the two men had sworn at them when they were put in the police cells. His statement was confirmed by two other police officers who had witnessed the events.
25.  The internal investigation was concluded on 15 August 2006. The decision stated that the police officers concerned had denied that the applicant had been subjected to brutal physical force, and that it had not been possible to prove the allegations without carrying out procedural measures. It was recommended that the materials of the internal investigation be forwarded to the Internal Security Office in order to decide whether to institute criminal proceedings, and to decide on any disciplinary measures after the adoption of the procedural decision.
26.  On 20 and 23 October 2006 the applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his alleged ill-treatment. In response, on 25 October 2006 the Internal Security Office and the Rīga City Centre District Prosecutor’s Office questioned the applicant as a victim in the criminal proceedings concerning his alleged ill‑treatment.
27.  Meanwhile, following the applicant’s complaint to the prosecutor’s office, on 27 October 2006 prosecutor S. dismissed the allegations concerning the ineffectiveness of the investigation carried out by the investigator, R. The decision stated, inter alia, that it was only the applicant who alleged that brutal force had been applied against him. The prosecutor also referred to the conclusion of the medico-legal assessment, which stated that it could not be excluded that some of the bodily injuries might have been sustained by his falling on to an uneven surface. In response to a complaint lodged by the applicant, a supervising prosecutor stated that prosecutor S. had simply quoted a paragraph from the medical expert’s conclusion and that she had not contended that the applicant’s injuries had been self-inflicted.
28.  On 10 January 2007 R., the investigator of the Internal Security Office, asked for an additional medico-legal assessment to be carried out in order to clarify whether on 9 June 2006, at the time the applicant was examined at Rīga Hospital No. 1, he had already had the broken ribs. After obtaining a specialist’s opinion that the X-ray results of 9 June 2006 had disclosed suspicions that two ribs had been fractured, on 23 January 2007 the medico-legal expert delivered his conclusions. He stated that it had not been possible to establish precisely whether the applicant’s ribs had already been broken on 9 June 2006, since the chest X-ray taken after the applicant’s arrest had been of a general nature and had not been taken from an angle that revealed the fracture.
29.  On 31 January 2007 R. terminated the criminal proceedings. Relying on the witness statements and the outcome of the medico-legal assessment, it was established that when the police officers arrived at the apartment, the applicant tried to escape and to attack the police officers, so K.H. and the officers from the special operations unit, using a special combat technique, put the applicant on the ground and handcuffed him. Later, at the police station, the applicant continued to behave aggressively, kicking one of the police officers and threatening them. In order to put a stop to his aggressive behaviour, the officers ordered the applicant to lie face down on the ground. The applicant refused, so K.H. forced him to lie down. During the search, O.K. and G.L., in the presence of two witnesses, found drugs in the applicant’s pocket. The decision referred to the fact that the police officers had been engaged in an unplanned operation in relation to a serious crime; that there had been a firearm in the apartment; and that the applicant had attempted to escape and that he had not obeyed police orders. Quoting section 31(1) of the Criminal Law it concluded that the bodily injuries inflicted on the applicant at the time of his arrest and at the police station were proportional to the applicant’s behaviour. During the arrest and in the police station the police’s use of force against the applicant had been in compliance with section 13 of the Law on the Police and no criminal liability under section 371 (2) of the Criminal Law could arise. The applicant lodged an appeal before the Rīga City Centre District Prosecutor’s Office.
30.  In February and March 2007 the applicant submitted various complaints about the investigation process to the Internal Security Office and requested the opportunity to identify the perpetrator in cross‑examination. He was informed on various occasions that he should address his request to the prosecutor’s office.
31.  Following the applicant’s appeal, on 1 March 2007 district prosecutor S. of the Rīga Centre District Prosecutor’s Office upheld his earlier decision and stated that the medical documents only indicated the injury and not whether the police officers were guilty. Moreover, it had not been possible to establish with certainty whether the injuries, namely the broken ribs, had already been sustained on 9 June 2006.
32.  The applicant appealed, and on 23 March 2007 a supervising district prosecutor of Rīga City Centre District Prosecutor’s Office upheld S.’s decision.
33.  Following a further appeal, on 9 May 2007 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Rīga Court Region revoked as unfounded the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings and referred the criminal case to the State police Internal Security Office for an additional investigation. Referring to K.H.’s testimonies according to which he had handcuffed the applicant and the latter had fallen down once, the prosecutor argued that after handcuffing the applicant it had not been necessary to restrain him, and that he could not have sustained the injuries by falling down only once. He concluded:
“... it was evident that, first, [the applicant] had sustained injuries during his arrest and, secondly, the treatment (in this case – beating at the apartment and the police station) during which the injuries had been inflicted, was not necessary in order to carry out his arrest: it was not necessary to continue applying force (vardarbību) in the police station or to lay him on the ground. ... once the applicant had been handcuffed [he] calmed down ... and the police officers had no legal grounds for applying force (vardarbību) against him and causing him medium-to-severe bodily injuries, by which the police officers evidently exceeded their duties”.
34.  From April 2007 to July 2008 the applicant submitted various complaints concerning the course of the investigation into his ill-treatment, and on several occasions he was informed that the preliminary investigation of the criminal case was pending.
35.  Following a complaint submitted by the applicant on 22 October 2008 to the Prosecutor General, on 6 November 2008 the Rīga City Centre District Prosecutor’s Office concluded that all the necessary investigative procedures had not been carried out in order to identify the perpetrators; it instructed the investigators to question the applicant and then re-assess all the materials in the case file in order to decide whether to carry out other procedural measures, including cross-examination. It noted that the supervising prosecutor must be immediately informed about the fulfilment of the instructions.
36.  On 27 November 2008, the applicant was questioned again by the investigator of the Internal Security Office and declared that he could recognise the perpetrators because they had been summoned as witnesses in his criminal case. In February and March 2009 confrontations between the applicant and five police officers as well as the civilian witness were carried out. During the confrontation the applicant stated, inter alia, that K.H. and V.O. had beaten him both during the arrest and at the police station; he could not identify the person who had jumped on him. K.H. confirmed that he had had to use proportional force to restrain the applicant both during his arrest and at the police station, whereas V.O. stated that he had not witnessed any ill-treatment because from the place where he sat the applicant’s cell was not visible.
37.  On 20 May 2009 the investigator R. decided to terminate the criminal proceedings. It was noted that there were serious discrepancies between the statements of the applicant and the police officers. The decision said:
“... [n]o causal link could be established between the actions of the police officers and the injuries sustained by [the applicant], and the investigation considers that the applicant could have sustained the injuries before his arrest on 9 June 2006, falling from his height under the influence of alcohol and drugs. The applicant was advised that the decision was subject to appeal to the Rīga City Centre District Prosecutor’s Office.”
38.  The decision could be appealed with the Rīga City Centre District Prosecutor’s Office. The applicant did not submit an appeal.
39.  On 29 January 2007 the lower court convicted the applicant of possession of illegal drugs and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. Some of the police officers who participated in his arrest testified as witnesses. As the events had taken place a long time before, they mainly upheld the statements that they had given during the pre-trial investigation. In answer to a question by the court, K.H. replied that at the time of the applicant’s arrest the latter had not shown signs of any injuries.
40.  On 6 June 2007 the Rīga Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. It also noted that the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant would be examined in another set of criminal proceedings and that the decision of 31 January 2007 had been appealed against. It stated, inter alia, that it had no reasons not to believe that the applicant had sustained injuries, but that the criminal proceedings had been terminated on the ground that the injuries had been inflicted as a result of the applicant’s behaviour.
41.  On 24 October 2007 the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.